§ 8. Mr. MALLALIEUasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that up to December last lists of licences granted under the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, marked confidential, were circulated to members of a certain organisation represented on the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee, and that directly complaint was made about this 923 the issue of such lists ceased; and can he say how this official information was obtained by the organisation in question?
§ Mr. BALDWINThe lists in question were distributed to members of the Licensing Committee, four of whom are representatives of the association mentioned and communicated the lists to that association. When it appeared that such communication was causing inconvenience to the Committee it was discontinued.
§ 11. Major M. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds it is considered necessary to compel an applicant to the Dyestuffs Act Licensing Committee for a licence to import a dye to disclose the name and address of his customer; and whether, in view of the presence on the Committee of trade rivals of the applicant, the necessity of giving this confidential information might be dispensed with?
§ Mr. BALDWINI would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 27th February to the hon. Member for Whitechapel.
§ Major WOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in neither of these answers does he give the ground upon which this has been done?
§ Mr. BALDWINI do not think the ground is difficult to see. It is my unwillingness to interfere with Committees which have been set up to do a certain work.
§ Mr. KILEYIs there any reason why a man should be compelled to give away his business goodwill for the benefit of his competitor?
§ Mr. BALDWINI am afraid I do not know what the element of compulsion is.
§ 12. Major WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that an application was recently made to the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee for a licence to import 6 cwts. of acid alizarine, grey G, a dye not made in the United Kingdom, which was required by consumers in three different industries; that the Licensing Committee granted a licence for 3 cwts. on the express condition that it was to be used in one industry only; and, if so, on what 924 grounds this preference is given to one over other industries?
§ Mr. BALDWINThe reason for the distinction was that in the opinion of the Committee in the one case an entirely suitable substitute of British manufacture was not available, whilst for the other purposes an adequate substitute was available.
§ 13. Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Government have imported quantities of dyes from Germany under reparations and are selling them through their agents in this country, while at the same time they are, through the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee, refusing to allow merchants to import the identical materials; and, if so, since the Government's action of selling German dyes in the United, Kingdom is seriously affecting the dye industry of this country, and, in fact, nullifying the effects of the Dyestuff (Import Regulation) Act, will he consider the desirability of immediately withdrawing this Act to enable dye merchants in this country to compete with the Government who, under the prevailing conditions, have a monopoly of trading in German dyes?
§ Mr. BALDWINI am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The stocks of reparation dyestuffs held by the Government were mainly obtained at a time when there was no reason to anticipate any immediate or prolonged decrease in requirements in this country, and were intended to supplement domestic production. Any additional supplies taken under the continuing option given by the Treaty of Versailles will be restricted to dyestuffs not produced in this country, and for which adequate substitutes are not obtainable from British manufacturers. No doubt the slow liquidation of the original stocks, in consequence of the general trade depression, is causing some difficulty to British manufacturers, but that does not appear to be a reason for the course suggested by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. KILEYIs there any reason why these dyes could not be distributed among firms who have been accustomed 925 to handle them for many years instead of giving a monopoly to one firm while others are destroyed?
§ Mr. BALDWINDoubtless there were alternative courses, but I am not in a position to judge without examining the question closely.
§ 20. Mr. MALLALIEUasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on the 29th November, 1921, the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee refused to recommend the issue of a licence to import a quantity of a dye not made in the United Kingdom named alizarine direct blue E3 B O, and suggested that a British-made dye named alizarine blue L A should be used by the applicant's customer as a substitute; that the user stated the substitute was altogether unsuitable, as it would not stand fast under certain processes it had to undergo; that since December last the Licensing Committee have repeatedly refused to recommend the issue of the licence despite the strongest evidence from the user that he could use no other dye than that for which a licence had been asked for, and that it would mean sending some hundreds of pounds worth of business abroad where the dye could be obtained; and, if so, does he approve of this action by the Licensing Committee?
§ 21. Mr. NEWBOULDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Zimmermann and Company (Photographic), Limited, of London, applied to the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee, on the 18th December last, for licences to import certain dyes used for tinting purposes by kinematograph film, printers; that on the 9th December the Licensing Committee refused to recommend the issue of such licences unless evidence was produced from the actual consumers showing that similar British-made dyes were not satisfactory for this particular process; that on the 20th and 21st December Messrs. Zimmermann forwarded to the Licensing Committee eight original communications from their customers, the film printers, who stated that unless they 926 were permitted to obtain supplies of the foreign dyes their industry would be seriously handicapped in competing with American and other foreign film-printing firms, and that they had tried all the British-made dyes, which had proved to be entirely unsatisfactory; that, after receiving this definite evidence, the Licensing Committee again on the 22nd December refused to recommend the issue of the licences; that on the 1st February Messrs. Zimmermann forwarded to the Licensing Committee a further six original communications from their customers the film printers, in which strong complaint was made against the Licensing Committee's refusal to allow them to obtain these dyes; that on the 3rd February the Licensing Committee again refused to recommend the issue of the licences, and gave no reason for such action; and, if so, does he approve of the Licensing Committee's action in thus forcing industries such as the film industry to use British-made dyes which are stated by consumers to be unsatisfactory and detrimental to the business when meeting foreign competition?
§ Mr. BALDWINI am in communication with the Committee in Manchester about these cases, and will inform the hon. Members of the result.